Slashdot Mirror
Google and Verizon In Talks To Prioritize Traffic (Updated)
Nrbelex writes "Google and Verizon are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon's ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased."
Update: 08/05 20:03 GMT by T :
nr3a1 writes with this informative update excerpted from Engadget: "Google's Public Policy Twitter account just belted out a denial of these claims, straight-up saying that the New York Times 'is wrong.' Here's the full tweet, which certainly makes us feel a bit more at ease. For now. '@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.' Verizon's now also issued a statement and, like Google, it's denying the claims in the original New York Times report."
You aren't speeding some traffic up, you're slowing the rest down.
Google is for net neutrality when the lack of net neutrality could cost Google money.
Google is against net neutrality when the lack of net neutrality could gain Google money.
In related news, Google is a publicly-traded for-profit corporation with an eye on the bottom line. Get used to it.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Well, the internet was pretty cool while it lasted.
Is there anything excessive greed can't ruin?
It always happens this way. Big corporations with the big money eat the small companies. If you can not afford to pay for driving on the highway, you have to drive on the second class roads. Same for the Internet - the big corporations now can have fast servers, with fast speeds, while the small business and individuals can not afford speed, offering slower services. Nothing new under the sun.
Google do not make all the worlds rules. One thing they are good at is adapting to them and trying to make the best out of bad situations. Google had hoped for legislation forbidding deals like these but when the politicians dont dare, google adapts.
Google has enough market power to effectively set the rules.
If Google said "We will no longer serve any Google content to any ISP which violates Net Neutrality", the debate would basically be over. You wouldn't even need any government regulation.
The agreement means that Verizon won't be able to give their own video downloads an advantage like you describe.
In what way do you believe that your scenario (giving Verizon PPV an advantage over other video services like YouTube) helps Google make more money?
Very poorly thought-out troll. No cookie for you.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
I would suggest the sun but I wouldn't want them to see that as a challenge....
Yes, you can complain to the multi-billion dollar corporation and they will change their plans just for you, give up their ill-gotten gains, because you're just THAT special.
As far as switching providers... maybe you're not one of the millions of Americans without much choice.
Maybe you actually have the option to move from Verizon, who is deliberately slowing down their competition... to your cable company... who is deliberately slowing down their competition.
The problem is that PIPELINE companies are allowed to be CONTENT companies and then now want to disadvantage other companies dependent on that pipeline.
Requiring one company to serve another without obstacle is ludicrous? Wrong, shithead, it's NORMAL, it's the LAW for example in the case of phone companies. They are required to allow competing long distance carriers to use the lines to your house without degradation... have been for decades... and more recently, were forced to allow competing LOCAL carriers to use their lines without degradation.
The result? Lower long distance prices, lower local call prices. More innovation. AT&T was essentially a monopoly, and breaking it up and forcing carriers to allow other companies equal access helped serve the public good.
You know what other effect it had?
Why, it created the FUCKING INTERNET as we know it - public access to it, that is.
Started with Carterphone, then Sprint. Govt. intervened to force AT&T to allow competing equipment to use its lines. Before this, the only plans for internet like systems were totally closed, corporate controlled lame-assed useless teletext plans that were delayed, years in the future. AT&T had no real plans. Cable companies had the idiotic Qube, for example.
What happened when anyone could use the lines for whatever, connect any equipment, without restriction, without degradation or prioritization?
MODEMS happened. The public embrace of the internet happened. There would BE no web you're using today if the government hadn't intervened and FORCED a company to allow equal access to its lines.
Government regulation of what are essentially monopolies or common carriers prevents total monopoly, consolidation, reduction of choice, services and quality, and massive price gouging, despite what your free market religion tells you.
How did the government deregulation of the financial industry work out, huh?
This space available.
Wait we have 10 major ISP's? Hold the phone. If we did we might actually have competitive broadband and make this whole 'net neutrality' issue moot.
Not if there's any truth the idea that google is the new microsoft.
You must be new here. Apple is the New Microsoft(TM).
And Google just became the new Level3. Let's hope Microsoft becomes the new Cogent.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Basically, it's important for VOIP to have a certain quality of service for clear voice calls, but different QOS rules may make sense for other data types
Do you remember when the millimeter wave full-body scans weren't going to be recorded? But now they routinely are? Remember when seatbelt laws would only be enforced in conjunction with another type of violation, but now they are an arrestable violation all on its own? Maybe you don't remember these things, but I do, with countless other examples I could name, I see a trend....
If it's possible, they'll do it and they already have (Comcast vs Torrents, anyone?) and the only reason they don't do it more is because people got pissy about it. We need to get pissy about this, too. Somehow, despite lacking all these vital QoS rules, the Internet has grown to become the dominant global information network, winning out over many other networks having such things as QoS enforcement. (EG: Proprietary ATM networks, etc)
Sorry, but I like my Internet the way it is, spam and all. It really needs to be nothing more than a Network of Endpoints all sharing equivalent potential value. Let people decide what's valuable and what's not.
We need to be pissy about this issue.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.